The Washington critic., 1887-03-22
WASHINGTON, MARCH %. 1887
IAN EVENING IN THE HOUSE or
COMMONS"


from foreign tour, describes In the
current issue Of Tho critic New York;
AN Evening In the House OF Com.
mons" and some Of the peculiaritIcs of
British ora,ory as compared with, or
rather resembling tl,ut Of the United
States.
II was m evening of general debate
UP NJ the Queen Address, led of by
MI Charles Brallu.h. Whose effort,
we are told, erred, Fl II erred at all, In
the matter of form, on The side OF too
much tlucucy and smoothHcss Nobody
listening tot wm-fMve heard In it
anything ~ distinguish It from the
ready and .lpNlns r'rois ur sinilr
character tn he hcH.l upuu the floor of
orr own Congress.
The ,icuk,r who followed vas Lord
Randolph Churchill OF whom Mt the
closing uf his remarks nm Awrricm
friend Of Mir pouer's sail: Clever,
but rot great aud the Eishop aids:
at was American, bat not the best
type of Amtrican oratnry.'
He theu goes ON tu describe "the
maiden speech OF Il young Englishman
ol noble lineage who ON the same
evening addressed the House of Com.
mons for the first time, and whose
composure, under very trying circum.
stances, was something remarkable.
Though admitting his inexperience at
the outset and frequently Interrupted
with evident intentions to disconcert
him, the young man showed no signs
OF embarrassment, maintained his
courtesy and good humor from first to
last, and long before the finish made
1t almost impossible to believe that he
was not thoroughly at home as a prac.
ticed speaker on that floor" To par
TALLY account for this the Bishop says:
The thing that was noticeable here, as in
the other cases, was that the style of speaking
was so thoroughly un English, that In its form
and utterance II did not betray from first to
last any OF that concern as TO the right or
wrong word, that reluctance to go ahead, or
that mcapaclty to do so, which have been
chiefly associated with the ordinary plrlia-
mentary speaker. II would be very inttering
10 our national vanity to assume that all this,
or any part of IT, was owing to the influence of
our American institutions and methods upon
our English brethren. As matter of fact,
do not doubt there may be something Ia this.
Intercourse between the two countries has be.
core so i1tima Q md acquaintance with our
best public speakers 80 general, and admira.
tion for them, I may add, 50 hearty, and often
enthusiastic, that II would not he surpr. Ing
if the mother had consented 10 learl some.
thing from the daughter.
The dawn of new era in parlla.
mentary style has come, THE speak
ing in the two representative bodies of
the Old World and the New has grown
In many respects curiously alike" II
Is "a token of the unifcation of Eng.
disappearing peoples -
But after all 1t seems 10 be question
able whether the mother" is to be
congratulated upon what she has Dor.
rowed from her daughter.
We are left TO infer from the general
tenor of Bishop Pottcr's article
that the "uniication of which he
speaks means little more than a trans
planting of some of the faults of our
system from American to English soil,
for he says: Undoubtedly the House
of Commons has lost In dignity and
fear, too, has lost In weight. 1t Is
no longer the leader of public opinion
that 1t used to be-"
Whether the Bishop so intended ol
not, the sequence is irresistible, that ii
sba E'pulieb Hnuca nf rnp,,nnps Z, an
dergoing process Of deterioration, it is
10 some extent, at least, result of Dor.
rowing the manners and methods of tho
American House. Both these grea,
parliaments must be losing In dignity
and losing in weight, and ceasing to bC
leaders OF public opinion. This may
be true. Then comes the question
whether through unifcation the Eng
lish speaking peoples are to be mad,
better or worse-whethcr unification Il
something to be encouraged or dis
couraged-whether 1t is q step ahead
or backward, whether, In short, 1t wer,
not better for England and America L
remain permanently distinctive factor
in the worlds progress instead of be
ing unified by the adoption of eacl
others defects.
This" as Bishop Potter suggests
"may afford an interesting subject 70
speculation in some graver discussion
than the present
In WAS a little indiscreet, perhaps, o
the part Of the President to give 1t on
that he popped the question" in tn
East Room of the White House. Their
are indications already that the romano
of the example thus set will prove cou
tagious, and love.sick swans with thei
best girls be tempted hlthcr from al
parts of the country on simila
errand, until the amorous fusillad
converts the oriental apartment into
sort of national shooting gallery. TIL
next thing Mr.. Cleveland know
clipping couples will be asking him 70
the use Of the "Gretna Green" room
AT THIS distance 1t would seem a
though the Car OF Russia migh
safely grant about all that is asked O
him by the Constitutional party. S
far as the amnesty of political prison
ers Is concerned, 1t Is an eXperlmen
that is at least worth trying. 1T ha
worked well in other countries VIII
not In Russia? As for the freedom o
the press, let Alexander study Jelfer
sonian principles awhile and give thu
newspapers full swing, They can en-
ighten the people more than all the
imperial schools and universities. And
why not let the ConstltutiOnalists have